draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-02.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-03.txt
	Network Working Group N. Duffield		Network Working Group N. Duffield
	Internet-Draft AT&T Labs-Research		Internet-Draft AT&T Labs-Research
	Intended status: Standards Track A. Morton		Intended status: Standards Track A. Morton
	Expires: December 22, 2011 AT&T Labs		Expires: April 29, 2012 AT&T Labs
	J. Sommers		J. Sommers
	Colgate University		Colgate University
	June 20, 2011		October 27, 2011
	Loss Episode Metrics for IPPM		Loss Episode Metrics for IPPM
	draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-02		draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	The IETF has developed a one way packet loss metric that measures the		The IETF has developed a one way packet loss metric that measures the
	loss rate on a Poisson probe stream between two hosts. However, the		loss rate on a Poisson probe stream between two hosts. However, the
	impact of packet loss on applications is in general sensitive not		impact of packet loss on applications is in general sensitive not
	just to the average loss rate, but also to the way in which packet		just to the average loss rate, but also to the way in which packet
	losses are distributed in loss episodes (i.e., maximal sets of		losses are distributed in loss episodes (i.e., maximal sets of
	consecutively lost probe packets). This draft defines one-way packet		consecutively lost probe packets). This draft defines one-way packet
	loss episode metrics, specifically the frequency and average duration		loss episode metrics, specifically the frequency and average duration
	skipping to change at page 1, line 47		skipping to change at page 1, line 47
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	skipping to change at page 3, line 39		skipping to change at page 3, line 39
	3.8. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.8. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4. An active probing methodology for Bi-Packet Loss . . . . . . . 11		4. An active probing methodology for Bi-Packet Loss . . . . . . . 11
	4.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.4. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.4. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.7. Errors and Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		4.7. Errors and Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	4.8. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		4.8. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5. Loss Epsiode Proto-Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. Loss Episode Proto-Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.1. Loss-Pair-Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1. Loss-Pair-Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.2. Bi-Packet-Loss-Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		5.2. Bi-Packet-Loss-Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5.3. Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Duration-Number . . . . . . . . . . 14		5.3. Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Duration-Number . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5.4. Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Frequency-Number . . . . . . . . . 14		5.4. Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Frequency-Number . . . . . . . . . 14
	6. Loss Episode Metrics derived from Bi-Packet Loss Probing . . . 14		6. Loss Episode Metrics derived from Bi-Packet Loss Probing . . . 14
	6.1. Geometric Stream: Loss Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6.1. Geometric Stream: Loss Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6.1.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6.1.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6.1.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6.1.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6.1.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		6.1.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	6.1.4. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		6.1.4. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	skipping to change at page 4, line 19		skipping to change at page 4, line 19
	6.2.4. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		6.2.4. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	6.2.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		6.2.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	6.2.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		6.2.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	6.2.7. Errors and Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		6.2.7. Errors and Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	6.2.8. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		6.2.8. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	6.3. Geometric Stream: Loss Episode Frequency . . . . . . . . . 18		6.3. Geometric Stream: Loss Episode Frequency . . . . . . . . . 18
	6.3.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		6.3.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	6.3.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		6.3.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	6.3.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		6.3.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	6.3.4. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		6.3.4. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	6.3.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		6.3.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	6.3.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		6.3.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	6.3.7. Errors and Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		6.3.7. Errors and Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	6.3.8. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		6.3.8. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	7. Applicability of Loss Episode Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		7. Applicability of Loss Episode Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	7.1. Relation to Gilbert Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		7.1. Relation to Gilbert Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	8. IPR Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		8. IPR Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	1.1. Background and Motivation		1.1. Background and Motivation
	skipping to change at page 6, line 22		skipping to change at page 6, line 22
	characterizing the statistics of the patterns of packet loss within		characterizing the statistics of the patterns of packet loss within
	the stream of probes. This is useful information in understanding		the stream of probes. This is useful information in understanding
	the effect of packet losses on application performance, since		the effect of packet losses on application performance, since
	different applications can have different sensitivities to patterns		different applications can have different sensitivities to patterns
	of loss, being sensitive not only to the long term average loss rate,		of loss, being sensitive not only to the long term average loss rate,
	but how losses are distributed in time. As an example: MPEG video		but how losses are distributed in time. As an example: MPEG video
	traffic may be sensitive to loss involving the I-frame in a group of		traffic may be sensitive to loss involving the I-frame in a group of
	pictures, but further losses within an episode of sufficiently short		pictures, but further losses within an episode of sufficiently short
	duration have no further impact; the damage is already done.		duration have no further impact; the damage is already done.
	The loss episode metrics presented here represent have the following		The loss episode metrics presented here have the following useful
	useful properties:		properties:
	1. the metrics are empirical and do not depend on an underlying		1. the metrics are empirical and do not depend on an underlying
	model; e.g., the loss process is not assumed to be Markovian. On		model; e.g., the loss process is not assumed to be Markovian. On
	the other hand, it turns out that the metrics of this memo can be		the other hand, it turns out that the metrics of this memo can be
	related to the special case of the Gilbert Model parameters; see		related to the special case of the Gilbert Model parameters; see
	Section 7.		Section 7.
	2. the metric units can be directly compared with applications or		2. the metric units can be directly compared with applications or
	user requirements or tolerance for network loss performance, in		user requirements or tolerance for network loss performance, in
	the frequency and duration of loss episodes, as well as the usual		the frequency and duration of loss episodes, as well as the usual
	skipping to change at page 8, line 36		skipping to change at page 8, line 36
	o P, the specification of the packet type, over and above the source		o P, the specification of the packet type, over and above the source
	and destination addresses		and destination addresses
	2.3. Metric Units		2.3. Metric Units
	A Loss Pair is pair (l1, l2) where each of l1 and l2 is a binary		A Loss Pair is pair (l1, l2) where each of l1 and l2 is a binary
	value 0 or 1, where 0 signifies successful transmission of a packet		value 0 or 1, where 0 signifies successful transmission of a packet
	and 1 signifies loss.		and 1 signifies loss.
	The metric unit for Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss takes is a Loss		The metric unit of Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss is a Loss Pair.
	Pair
	2.4. Metric Definition		2.4. Metric Definition
	1. "The Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss with parameters (Src, Dst, T1,		1. "The Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss with parameters (Src, Dst, T1,
	T2, F, P) is (1,1)" means that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P		T2, F, P) is (1,1)" means that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P
	packet to Dst at wire-time T1 and the first bit of a Type-P		packet to Dst at wire-time T1 and the first bit of a Type-P
	packet to Dst a wire-time T2>T1, and that neither packet was		packet to Dst a wire-time T2>T1, and that neither packet was
	received at Dst.		received at Dst.
	2. The Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss with parameters (Src, Dst, T1,		2. The Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss with parameters (Src, Dst, T1,
	skipping to change at page 11, line 4		skipping to change at page 10, line 48
	The metric definition of Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Stream is		The metric definition of Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Stream is
	sufficiently general to describe the case where packets are sampled		sufficiently general to describe the case where packets are sampled
	from a pre-existing stream. This is useful in the case that there is		from a pre-existing stream. This is useful in the case that there is
	a general purpose measurement stream setup between two hosts, and we		a general purpose measurement stream setup between two hosts, and we
	which to select a substream from it for the purposes of loss episode		which to select a substream from it for the purposes of loss episode
	measurement. In the next section we specialize this somewhat to more		measurement. In the next section we specialize this somewhat to more
	concretely describe a purpose built packet stream for loss episode		concretely describe a purpose built packet stream for loss episode
	measurement.		measurement.
	3.6. Methodologies		3.6. Methodologies
			The methodologies related to the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss metric in
			Section 2.6 of [RFC2680] are similar for the Type-P-One-way-Bi-
			Packet-Loss-Stream metric described above. In particular, the
			methodologies described in RFC 2680 apply to both packets of each
			pair.
	3.7. Errors and Uncertainties		3.7. Errors and Uncertainties
			Sources of error for the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss metric in Section
			2.7 of [RFC2680] apply to each packet of each pair for the Type-P-
			One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Stream metric.
	3.8. Reporting the Metric		3.8. Reporting the Metric
			Refer to Section 2.8 of [RFC2680].
	4. An active probing methodology for Bi-Packet Loss		4. An active probing methodology for Bi-Packet Loss
	This section specializes the preceding section for an active probing		This section specializes the preceding section for an active probing
	methodology. The basic idea is a follows. We set up a sequence of		methodology. The basic idea is a follows. We set up a sequence of
	evenly spaced times T1 < T2 < ... < Tn. Each time Ti is potentially		evenly spaced times T1 < T2 < ... < Tn. Each time Ti is potentially
	the first packet time for a packet pair measurement. We make an		the first packet time for a packet pair measurement. We make an
	independent random decision at each time, whether to initiate such a		independent random decision at each time, whether to initiate such a
	measurement. Hence the interval count between successive times at		measurement. Hence the interval count between successive times at
	which a pair is initiated follows a geometric distribution. We also		which a pair is initiated follows a geometric distribution. We also
	specify that the spacing between successive times Ti is the same as		specify that the spacing between successive times Ti is the same as
	skipping to change at page 13, line 25		skipping to change at page 13, line 27
	schedule. Note that the choice of time spacing directly affects the		schedule. Note that the choice of time spacing directly affects the
	ability of the host CPU to meet the required schedule (e.g., consider		ability of the host CPU to meet the required schedule (e.g., consider
	a 100 microsecond spacing versus a 100 millisecond spacing).		a 100 microsecond spacing versus a 100 millisecond spacing).
	For other considerations, refer to Section 3.7. [RFC2680].		For other considerations, refer to Section 3.7. [RFC2680].
	4.8. Reporting the Metric		4.8. Reporting the Metric
	Refer to Section 3.8. of [RFC2680].		Refer to Section 3.8. of [RFC2680].
	5. Loss Epsiode Proto-Metrics		5. Loss Episode Proto-Metrics
	This section describes four generic proto-metric quantities		This section describes four generic proto-metric quantities
	associated with an arbitrary set of loss pairs. These are the Loss-		associated with an arbitrary set of loss pairs. These are the Loss-
	Pair-Counts, Bi-Packet-Loss-Ratio, Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Duration-		Pair-Counts, Bi-Packet-Loss-Ratio, Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Duration-
	Number, Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Frequency-Number. Specific loss		Number, Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Frequency-Number. Specific loss
	episode metrics can then be constructed when these proto metrics take		episode metrics can then be constructed when these proto metrics take
	as their input, sets of loss pairs samples generated by the Type-P-		as their input, sets of loss pairs samples generated by the Type-P-
	One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Stream and Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-		One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Stream and Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-
	Geometric Stream. The second of these is described in Section 4. It		Geometric Stream. The second of these is described in Section 4. It
	is not expected that these proto-metrics would be reported		is not expected that these proto-metrics would be reported
	skipping to change at page 18, line 44		skipping to change at page 18, line 47
	and destination address		and destination address
	6.3.3. Metric Units		6.3.3. Metric Units
	A positive number.		A positive number.
	6.3.4. Metric Definition		6.3.4. Metric Definition
	The result obtained by computing the Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Frequency		The result obtained by computing the Bi-Packet-Loss-Episode-Frequency
	over a Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream sample with the		over a Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream sample with the
	metric parameters, then dividing he result by the launch spacing		metric parameters, then dividing the result by the launch spacing
	parameter d.		parameter d.
	6.3.5. Discussion		6.3.5. Discussion
	Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream-Episode-Frequency		Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream-Episode-Frequency
	estimates the average frequency per unit time with which loss		estimates the average frequency per unit time with which loss
	episodes start (or finish). The frequency relative to the count of		episodes start (or finish). The frequency relative to the count of
	potential probe launches is obtained by multiplying the metric value		potential probe launches is obtained by multiplying the metric value
	by the packet launch spacing parameter d.		by the packet launch spacing parameter d.
	6.3.6. Methodologies		6.3.6. Methodologies
	Refer toSection 4.6		Refer to Section 4.6
	6.3.7. Errors and Uncertainties		6.3.7. Errors and Uncertainties
	Because Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream is sampled in		Because Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream is sampled in
	general (when the launch probability q <1) the metrics described in		general (when the launch probability q <1) the metrics described in
	this Section can be regarded as statistical estimators of the		this Section can be regarded as statistical estimators of the
	corresponding idealized version corresponding to q = 1. Estimation		corresponding idealized version corresponding to q = 1. Estimation
	variance as it applies to Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-		variance as it applies to Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-
	Stream-Episode-Frequency is described in [SBDR08].		Stream-Episode-Frequency is described in [SBDR08].
	skipping to change at page 20, line 10		skipping to change at page 20, line 16
	r = P(b|g)/(P(b|g) + P(g|b)) and m/d = 1/P(g|b).		r = P(b|g)/(P(b|g) + P(g|b)) and m/d = 1/P(g|b).
	These relationships can be inverted in order to recover the Gilbert		These relationships can be inverted in order to recover the Gilbert
	model parameters:		model parameters:
	P(g|b) = d/m and P(b|g)=d/m/(1/r - 1)		P(g|b) = d/m and P(b|g)=d/m/(1/r - 1)
	8. IPR Considerations		8. IPR Considerations
	IPR disclosures concerning some of the material covered in this draft		An IPR disclosure concerning some of the material covered in this
	has been made to the IETF: see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1009/		draft has been made to the IETF: see
	, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1010/ , and		https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1354/
	https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1126/
	9. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy		Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy
	concerns. This memo does not specify an implementation of the		concerns. This memo does not specify an implementation of the
	metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet		metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet
	nor of applications which run on the Internet.		nor of applications which run on the Internet.
	However,implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security		However,implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security
	and privacy concerns.		and privacy concerns.
	skipping to change at page 21, line 4		skipping to change at page 21, line 7
	artificially lowered. Therefore, the measurement methodologies		artificially lowered. Therefore, the measurement methodologies
	SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the probability that		SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the probability that
	measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal" traffic.		measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal" traffic.
	Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may be used		Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may be used
	where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks. The		where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks. The
	privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active		privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active
	measurements described in this memo: they involve no release of user		measurements described in this memo: they involve no release of user
	data.		data.
	10. IANA Considerations		10. IANA Considerations
	11. Acknowledgements		11. Acknowledgements
	12. References		12. References
	12.1. Normative References		12.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way		[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
	Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.		Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
	[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation		[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
	Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,		Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
	November 2002.		November 2002.
	[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
	performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
	November 2002.
	[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control		[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
	Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611,		Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611,
	November 2003.		November 2003.
			[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
			Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
			[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
			performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
			November 2002.
	12.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,		[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
	"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,		"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
	May 1998.		May 1998.
	[RFC3357] Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern Sample		[RFC3357] Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern Sample
	Metrics", RFC 3357, August 2002.		Metrics", RFC 3357, August 2002.
	[SBDR08] IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 16(2): 307-320, "A		[SBDR08] IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 16(2): 307-320, "A
End of changes. 20 change blocks.
	25 lines changed or deleted		37 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/